get_user_usage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It prominently discloses that resource values are raw integers (bytes, millicores) and instructs conversion, which is critical for correct interpretation of results. This goes beyond simple read-only intent, though it omits details like error conditions or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each earns its place. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second delivers a high-value conversion warning. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return structure, and the description supplies the missing unit semantics. For a simple read-only usage tool, this is sufficient context; the only gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, already scored separately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies that the optional userName parameter can target a specific user or omit to get all users, which maps directly to the schema's default-null userName. However, it does not explain partitionName beyond the schema title, leaving partial ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('resource usage and quota information') with clear scope ('all users or a specific user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on partitions, queues, applications, nodes, and health.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no explicit exclusions, and no prerequisites are stated. The description implies a query tool but does not help the agent decide between it and related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.